The Computational Universe

My understanding of Artificial Intelligence has evolved considerably over the course of this semester.  My initial understanding was guided by Brook’s logic and many of his points still hold true for me.  Brook’s logic remained intact in my opinion until we got to the Scribbler lab in which we were to create some form of artwork with our Scribbler.

Our class discussion the other day highlighted Searle’s main point, that while computers may pass the Turing Test, it is still not a valid test of consciousness.  Searle’s argument leaves me wondering about the features that would be necessary for a computer to have limitless creative capacity.  When I think of our Scribbler lab I remember that the closest my Scribbler could get to creativity was randomness followed by a programmable action—which in my opinion is still very far from real and conscious creativity.  Placing creativity on par with consciousness, I find Searle’s argument most compelling in that the Turing Test cannot determine the consciousness of an entity, despite the fact that it may be possible for a computer to pass the test.

It is difficult to side with either Brooks or Searle about whether or not it will ever be possible to duplicate the mechanical properties the brain as well as the rules that govern its actions.  Unlike Searle, I’d like to think that AI is possible at some level yet I will take from him that the Turing Test is not the proper benchmark of determining whether or not a machine is intelligent.

This entry is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.